Amusing incident proves that modern perception of "Art" is crap

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous


So the empty base and pedestal were accepted but the head was not. And thus, we get a head-less display. Not only that, the human part was removed and only the earthen materials remain.

Now if THAT isn't art, I don't know what is...

Art does not have to have a human part. Someone mentioned that things found in nature can not be art, well, it can be turned into art if it is given a new context. Just as in this instance, a pedestal, through circumstances of chance (which, mind you, was a product of human activity) can take on new meaning of it's own. Although I'm not going to attempt critique the display in the gallery without seeing it.

Andy Goldsworthy is a perfect example of how something natural and common can be turned into art. I'll post photos, but they don't do his work justice as it can really only be fully appretiated if you can see it in it's environment entirely, and can witness how the passage of time effects it. (there are some amazing movies that show some of his work)




(The figure is a "rain shadow" - made by lying on the ground during a storm)

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


And this is exactly why the incident shows that modern art is worthless. Nothing was expressed! It was the product of chance!

Oh my goodness, why you're absolutely right!


All modern art is worthless !




Oh dearie me- artists as well known and un-modern as Leonardo da Vinci have explored the possibilities of the random, the accidental, the aspect of chance.

He urged his pupils to look for inspiration in the chance patterns made by wood grain, peeling plaster, damp on ceilings or cloud formations.

The Surrealists strove to introduce an element of automatism into their work, to work directly from the subconscious- and why not ?


There is no International Court of Rules for Art, sorry to disappoint you.

And if you're not moved by a particular piece of work- well so what ?

That doesn't mean it lacks meaning, or that nothing was expressed. It only means that you didn't perceive its meaning or that it said nothing to you.

You're leaping from the particular to the universal, and confusing expression with communication.

[molly bloom]

What is the artist expressing here ?

[molly bloom]

What's this artist expressing ?

[molly bloom]

What's this expressing ?

[Drake Tungsten]

What is the artist expressing here ?

"Jesus had weird friends."

What's this artist expressing ?

"Egypt is cool and funky."

What's this expressing ?

Nothing...

[Sikander]

This thread thinks too much.

[molly bloom]

Now if only they'd explain what they're trying to communicate...

[molly bloom]

Pity he didn't leave a note or draw a diagram for those who feel this isn't 'universal' enough, or doesn't express anything to them...

[Fake Boris]

Claiming that Warlhol's Brillo boxes is not art is almost a self-defeating statement. If you feel the need to assert that it's not art, chances are you have recognized them as such... and are making a judgment of artistic merit, but not a categorial one.

[Richelieu]

Red Square

[Richelieu]

Black Square and Red Square

[Richelieu]

Black Circle !

[Richelieu]

And... Black Square!

[Richelieu]

Kasimir Malevich's art and his Suprematist manifesto are amongst the most vital artistic developments of this century.


Obviously.